Alabama Attorney General Opinion 1979-0130

T CHARLES A. GRADOICK ATTORNEY GENERAL tir\ MAR 2? WM a "...am THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ALABAMA • MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA NH m34 I, lg. 00Iso Honorable Richard L. Lewis Mayor, City of Brighton 3700 Main Street Brighton, Alabama 35020 Municipalities - City of Brighton; Roosevelt City Planning and Zoning. Municipality may not levy license tax or improvement assessment against property in its corporate limits owned by another municipality. Dear Mayor Lewis: I am replying to your request for an opinion from the Attorney General concerning the taxation power of the City of Brighton on property and activities of the City of Roosevelt City within the corporate limits of Brighton. In your letter you stated that Roosevelt City maintained a city hall and a police station on property owned by it within the corporate limits of the City of Brighton. There are also shops located within the Roosevelt City property on which the City Hall is located. You then asked the following questions: The City of Brighton, therefore, respectfully request an opinion as to: (1) Whether we have any taxing power or can police generally supervise activities in and around Roosevelt City Hall; and (2) Can the City of Brighton exercise its normal powers to license, tax, zone and otherwise carry out its normal municipal functions concerning the Roosevelt City-City Hall complex and shops. Regarding your first question, this office concluded in an opinion found at Quarterly Report of the Attorney General, Vol. 122, page 20, that a municipality may not, without specific Honorable Richard L. Lewis Page Two statutory authority, impose a tax upon another municipality or other subdivision of the State which has the authority to levy taxes. In an opinion found at Quarterly Report of the Attorney General, Vol. 77, page 54, this office concluded that the general language giving cities the power to levy assess- ments for s'.:reet or sewer improvements is not sufficient to embrace the property of the State or county or property which is devoted strictly to public purposes. In light of the opinion found at Vol. 122, page 20 discussed above, this conclusion would also apply to property owned by municipalities. There- fore, the City of Brighton may not levy tax assessments against property owned by Roosevelt City upon which its city hall and police station are built. The City of Brighton should extend its police protection and law making power over this property in the same manner it would have police power over private property and the activities thereon. Turning to you second question, the City of Brighton may exercise zoning authority over the property owned by Roosevelt City where the shops are built. The City of Brighton may not impose a license tax on the municipally developed shopping area in its corporate limits if the shops are under the control of the municipality of Roosevelt City. The opinion of the Attorney General found at Quarterly Report of the Attorney General, Vol. 122, page 20 stated that the statute giving a municipality the authority to levy license taxes upon trades and businesses within its corporate limits did not contain specific authority permitting a municipality to tax a governmental agency or public corporation. However, if the property is leased to private individuals for shops and other businesses, the City of Brighton may levy tax against these. If our office can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on us. Sincerely, • CHARLES A. GRADDICK Attorney General By,- 0{4 LY DA F. KNIGHT Assistant Attorney General LFK;sg